Disney not subject to Anaheim’s ‘living wage’ ballot measure, judge rules - OCR/SCNG

[TP2000]

It turns out people who are in unions are - on average - more productive. Maybe they work harder or maybe their companies are better run. There's little debate among economists about whether unions improve productivity.

Really?

That would seem to go against every industry, aside from government workers represented by public employee unions.

General Motors has union employees across the Midwest and went bankrupt and sells Chevy Malibus. Honda has non-union employees across the Midwest and never went bankrupt and sells Honda Accords.

If I'm Honda, and I want to make an even better Accord in my Ohio factory, why wouldn't I turn all the employees into union members?

An even better question is... If I'm a middle-class customer who wants to spend 30K on a new car for my family, do I buy an Accord or do I buy a Malibu? Which car is better and holds its value longer, thus making it a smarter buy for me as the customer?

 

[Cesar R M]

Ya ideally their would be a career path if someone wants it. Not sure how often that happens though.

Well, then you also have to deal with conglomerates doing "below the table" type of deals (aka gentlemen's deals) to avoid job competition.

Just like they did with the 3d animators industry. Where Disney, Dreamworks and others did a "gentleman's agreement" all to prevent skilled animators from moving to another company and have an excuse to maintain stagnated salaries.

https://www.cartoonbrew.com/disney/animation-wage-fixing-lawsuit-explainer-community-131812.html


Or other techniques like moving the animations where they have huge government subsidies (like Canada) and "cheaper" living conditions.



Same happened in sports. See Soccer... where they stagnated the average player's salary on purpose while only boosting certain famous players for PR and media frenzy.
Or Baseball.. but that was a long time ago... (funny how story repeats as long there are dirty crooks wanting quick money doing illegal or dirty things)


You can google online about this and seems to happen with many big IT and tech firms.

I'm confused. So you are saying 100% of American workers are paid the legal minimum for their jobs? If not, well, they must be being paid more for working harder of having better skills - you can't have it both ways.

Where the hell did I said that? you're implying a lot of stuff that was never said in the quoted statement.

I'm dispelling the myth said by the privileged, leaders or executives and that defines the hilarity of "trickle down economics". Where this principle has been proven wrong again and again and again.
Rich will not get trickle down, they will eat the cake, the crumbs and then get the dish if they could.

Oh, and I have lived from terrible paycheck to paycheck, had credit card debt I could barely cover, and had to live with a bunch of terrible roommates and work multiple jobs to get by. Your point is?

Good for you!
Like many things in life, your position isnt exactly everyone's. Just like USA conditions are not the same worldwide. Expectations are different. Same with the differences between BEFORE and CURRENT times. ( Just like there was a huge difference between prior to industrial revolution and the electronics and computer bonanza )

And then I learned more skills, added more value, made good life choices, and worked my up to better positions so I didn't have to. My situation was on me to improve and not blame others and expect something from an employer or my fellow taxpayer that I wasn't able to earn in the marketplace. .

Congratulations! you just confirmed about working SMARTER not HARDER.

Also again, the hilarity of "me to improve and not to blame others" do not apply to everyone.
I'd love you say that face to face to an african person living in a civil war ravaged country fueled by third party worldwide interests and mercenaries trying to get the resources of that country.

Again, if you are in a job where your employer is paying you the absolute minimum only because he has to under the law or some union agreement, you may want to think about the value you're offering them.

Value is interchangeable and has different meaning to everyone you ask. As every company , group, etc.. will have a say on what is value. And where thanks to Wall Street dictations (not free market mind you... Wall street mantra) That they must extract everything they can from you while giving as little as possible they can (efficiency, share value and cost cuts are king).
Remember, Before... workers used to be seen as assets that needed to be taken care and nurtured.
Thanks to Wall Street predatory neoliberal and globalized mantra; companies now see employees as a liability.

And theres a causality model behind that. You increase the money supply by just printing more and giving it to people just for existing and voting. Not by adding any value into the economy, just by fiat.

As more and more money is hoarded into fewer hands with less liquidity movements. The only solution the government can do is either tax more or print more.
And you know the uproar people take when they tax corporations and business and somehow bow down when they are the ones getting taxed.

 

[Axoman]

Really?

That would seem to go against every industry, aside from government workers represented by public employee unions.

General Motors has union employees across the Midwest and went bankrupt and sells Chevy Malibus. Honda has non-union employees across the Midwest and never went bankrupt and sells Honda Accords.

If I'm Honda, and I want to make an even better Accord in my Ohio factory, why wouldn't I turn all the employees into union members?

An even better question is... If I'm a middle-class customer who wants to spend 30K on a new car for my family, do I buy an Accord or do I buy a Malibu? Which car is better and holds its value longer, thus making it a smarter buy for me as the customer?

To add to this, I had an internship with a semi-truck manufacturer during the summer between my sophomore and junior years of college. I had to go to one of their factories in Ohio to do some research and I got to see the assembly line working. At multiple stations, I would see 1 or 2 employees working on the trucks at their stations and 2 or 3 others just sitting or standing around talking.

Furthermore, at the end of the assembly line, they would have trucks off to the side that had red tags. The red tags meant that something wasn't right/complete on them and they needed further work. After talking to the some of the people there, the majority of the red tagged trucks could have been fixed pretty easily by someone else during the trip through the assembly line, but because the people at stations down the line wouldn't take the time to fix the issue, they would get red tagged and progress through the line. It wasn't in their job description to fix a loose bolt/nut/plug in an electrical harness/whatever, so they wouldn't.

 

[Cesar R M]

Of course and most of the people in this country have done just that. But the point is if you take that job that doesn't require skills and don't move on to one that does, then I fail to understand why one is complaining about their wages.

That story of the Disneyland Hotel cast member @TP2000 posted is Exhibit A-Z on this topic.

She hired in to do basically a minimum wage job. She continues to do basically a minimum wage job. And so what is the beef with still being paid (above minimum wage not including any benefits, BTW) similarly for that job whether it is 1, 5, 10, or 40 years later?

And if you are going to argue her decades of experience has made her the world's BEST breakfast set up person, then there are dozens of high end hotels in OC that would gladly pay her more for that unique, valuable skill.

Has she applied to these luxury hotels? Did they determine that her unique skill set and experience are worth more than she is making today? If not, why not?

She may be literally the worst person for the "living wage" argument you could imagine and the fact that she is apparently the Poster Child, tells you all you need to know about the logic behind it.

Actually I see her as the best example to follow related to the minimum wage debacle.

She has been in the same job for decades, so she understand how she used to live back then and how things have changed up to the point of now.

She is a living specimen of unchanged work conditions and position with the same apparent needs and the only change has been the wage and its values in the market.

She might have been able to pay all her basics with her wage back then, but with the gigantic disparity of wage value and minimum wage stagnation. She can no longer afford the minimums and she might get to a point where sse literally lives in poverty state ( as reported by a few WDW workers. On how they have to crowd in tiny apartment in masse to barely make even).

To resume: Her 5 USD Salary 40 years ago might have allowed her to buy a car and even a home.
Now? the 15 USD /h might not even buy her groceries.

 

[Cesar R M]

And as expected Disney is finding ways to offset those raises, wave bye to free FP+ and say hello to paid Genie+ and paid individual Lightning lane.

Do you really think they wouldn't do this even if their salaries remained the same?
As mentioned many times.. they will push to add more monetization as they can.. REGARDLESS of salaries or economy.

They have done so in the past with cost cuts.
If they were really that related to "offset costs". They would have cut executive bonus pay. But they haven't

May want to Google "Rust Belt exodus and abandoned factories"...

Well, as someone who has run both unionized and non-unionized businesses, your comment that unionized workers tend to be better than their non-union peers is certainly not what I've experienced in several situations and multiple industries, but glad that's been your experience.

But the market has spoken so....

View attachment 599937

Globalization happened. If Wall Street hasnt moved to "lets go global, reduce taxes, move jobs to china" and the rise of union busting groups. You bet the movement would have been high.

Also, the anti union propaganda about it being "socialism"... I seen it on so many forums its hilarious.

Yeah, but think of how cool the congratulatory Tweet from @BernieSanders would look!

I want to buy those 100$ custom tweets from Trump

 

[RobWDW1971]

Actually I see her as the best example to follow related to the minimum wage debacle.

She has been in the same job for decades, so she understand how she used to live back then and how things have changed up to the point of now.

She is a living specimen of unchanged work conditions and position with the same apparent needs and the only change has been the wage and its values in the market.

She might have been able to pay all her basics with her wage back then, but with the gigantic disparity of wage value and minimum wage stagnation. She can no longer afford the minimums and she might get to a point where sse literally lives in poverty state ( as reported by a few WDW workers. On how they have to crowd in tiny apartment in masse to barely make even).

To resume: Her 5 USD Salary 40 years ago might have allowed her to buy a car and even a home.
Now? the 15 USD /h might not even buy her groceries.

And the fact that she was forced to go work for Disneyland and has never been allowed to seek a better paying job and is held there against her will to this day is outrageous!

Oh wait....

 

[Cesar R M]

And the fact that she was forced to go work for Disneyland and has never been allowed to seek a better paying job and is held there against her will to this day is outrageous!

Oh wait....

Wow you missed the point by so far...you might have hit the moon.

 

[denyuntilcaught]

The amount of economists in this forum blows me away.

 

[Heppenheimer]

The amount of economists in this forum blows me away.

If you are familiar with the amount of epidemiologists, immunologists, statisticians and virologists in the COVID threads, this should surprise nobody.

 

[RobWDW1971]

Really?

That would seem to go against every industry, aside from government workers represented by public employee unions.

I think Disney captured this issue best:

 

[SuddenStorm]

It's always interesting to me how different everyone's definition of what a living wage is supposed to support is.

Why is car ownership and home ownership frequently referenced as the minimum standard for a 'living wage'?

Shouldn't a minimum living wage just be enough to support you having a roof over your head, a bed, bathroom, shower, groceries, and enough to afford public transportation and/or a bike?

What's wrong with having roommates? What's wrong with taking the bus?

But it's also worth mentioning- most Disneyland hourly employees are part time, not full time. Attractions, food, etc all hire part time to start. If the job is advertised and hired to be part time, why is it expected to pay a certain amount to be 'living'? Since the general expectation of a part time job is that it isn't your full time occupation- but is something you would do while in school or while working a different full time job.

 

[TP2000]

It's always interesting to me how different everyone's definition of what a living wage is supposed to support is.

Wait, did any of the Living Wage proponents actually give a dollar estimate to what a Living Wage is and I missed it?

I thought I was the only one who laid out a basic payscale for Disneyland's entry-level jobs that can be done satisfactorily by the average 18 year old?

In short... About $18 bucks an hour, give or take a dollar or two depending on the specific role. (Ride ops pay the least because they are high demand glamour roles, Security pays more if they start actually breaking up Toontown fights instead of just watching the customers brawl, Food ops and Custodial pays more because it's generally crummy and dirty, etc.)

Why is car ownership and home ownership frequently referenced as the minimum standard for a 'living wage'?

That's a great point. I have no idea how having a car became a minimum standard when the virtuous are only taking public transit.

Shouldn't a minimum living wage just be enough to support you having a roof over your head, a bed, bathroom, shower, groceries, and enough to afford public transportation and/or a bike?

That seems to me to be a good baseline for unskilled, entry-level work.

What's wrong with having roommates? What's wrong with taking the bus?

Absolutely nothing! In my youth I rode city buses to/from my job routinely, or would take the city bus downtown to go shopping or hang out. There is absolutely nothing wrong with taking the bus, especially as a young person. I find a few years of that while a person is young to be character building and good for public socialization, rather than just being handed the keys to a new Mustang convertible at age 16.

 

[RobWDW1971]

But it's also worth mentioning- most Disneyland hourly employees are part time, not full time. Attractions, food, etc all hire part time to start. If the job is advertised and hired to be part time, why is it expected to pay a certain amount to be 'living'? Since the general expectation of a part time job is that it isn't your full time occupation- but is something you would do while in school or while working a different full time job.

No, you don't get it. These jobs are clearly meant to be a life long commitment by the employer to house, feed, and support you with full benefits, park admission perks, discounts, etc.

This is not an entry level, part time job, it is a 40 year commitment regardless of your ability to learn more skills or how the market values your skills.

And if the employee does not value your 40 years of lifelong employment, they will go on YouTube to openly bash you because they know they are protected by their union so they can openly criticize the hand that has fed them since the Reagan Administration.

Be careful when you choose that churro vendor Disneyland off the street! It's a life long commitment!

 

[el_super]

Shouldn't a minimum living wage just be enough to support you having a roof over your head, a bed, bathroom, shower, groceries, and enough to afford public transportation and/or a bike?

Yes ... Who said anything a out car ownership? This is literally a problem of food insecurity and homelessness among CMs as was posted from the 2018 survey. Living wage in this sense just means eliminating those threats to CMs existance, not making sure they live a life of luxury.

And still some people are against it.

But it's also worth mentioning- most Disneyland hourly employees are part time, not full time.

That isn't true. Hasn't been since probably 2005.

And no one here is arguing about gauranteed hours. At least not that I have seen. The point really is that if someone is working 40 hours a week at Disneyland, they should be able to provide themselves with food and shelter.

 

[EPCOTCenterLover]

Southern California is now fairly unaffordable because everything is taxed to the hilt. Smaller businesses- those that generally do personally care about the welfare of their employees- can barely survive. I blame decades of poor government in Sacramento.

 

[Cesar R M]

It's always interesting to me how different everyone's definition of what a living wage is supposed to support is.

Why is car ownership and home ownership frequently referenced as the minimum standard for a 'living wage'?

Shouldn't a minimum living wage just be enough to support you having a roof over your head, a bed, bathroom, shower, groceries, and enough to afford public transportation and/or a bike?

What's wrong with having roommates? What's wrong with taking the bus?

But it's also worth mentioning- most Disneyland hourly employees are part time, not full time. Attractions, food, etc all hire part time to start. If the job is advertised and hired to be part time, why is it expected to pay a certain amount to be 'living'? Since the general expectation of a part time job is that it isn't your full time occupation- but is something you would do while in school or while working a different full time job.

Probably because "back in the days". You could get a house, a car, maintain a family of 4 with a work in a factory with no high level education.

No, you don't get it. These jobs are clearly meant to be a life long commitment by the employer to house, feed, and support you with full benefits, park admission perks, discounts, etc.

This is not an entry level, part time job, it is a 40 year commitment regardless of your ability to learn more skills or how the market values your skills.

And if the employee does not value your 40 years of lifelong employment, they will go on YouTube to openly bash you because they know they are protected by their union so they can openly criticize the hand that has fed them since the Reagan Administration.

Be careful when you choose that churro vendor Disneyland off the street! It's a life long commitment!

Its funny that every-time someone says a very compelling argument, your joke with hyperboles and over-exaggeration of things noone really asked.

This again, has nothing to do with "40 years old lifelong" orthe same overused argument of "she should have changed jobs". That is not the point at all of the minimum wage talk. The real point is the degradation of the purchasing power of the dollar that makes nowadays the minimum wage insufficient.

The dollar has less purchasing power and salaries have not kept up to date to maintain the same parity.
To resume, the same basic job that allowed you to allow you to rent and get enough food, manage to pay basic medical and education years ago is now poverty wage that can barely maintain food in your table and any medical emergencies will get you bankrupt, education is also a pipe dream. This is an age where the top corporations are posting never seen records of profits with the CEOs and higher executives earning millions of millions of bonuses and stock value dividends and where these same privileged billionaires pay less taxes than anybody else. The same millionaires who get ridiculous incentives like tax exempts, free land and other benefits.
While the same groups of interests parrot about how socialism is bad when its FOR the people, but they are allright if its socialism FOR the rich (aka to keep wages low, government does subsidies to let people barely live by which are paid by middle class).
To resume, modern capitalism is what was feared back in the 90's. The rise of corporative feudalism.




As for graphics... there has been tons of studies about this.

Ironically, the "Boomer generation". The ones who got the best of the best of the economy, are the ones blasting about socialism and how the current generation are "lazy".

Which makes this famous meme very real.

Speaking of "Benefits" from Disney. Isn't Disney scaling back and cutting more and more benefits for the general cast members groups?
I remember hearing that many discounts on merchandise has been cut back. There are more blacked out days on the parks than ever before and its been ages since they had food discounts?

 

[RobWDW1971]

Probably because "back in the days". You could get a house, a car, maintain a family of 4 with a work in a factory with no high level education.



Its funny that every-time someone says a very compelling argument, your joke with hyperboles and over-exaggeration of things noone really asked.

This again, has nothing to do with "40 years old lifelong" orthe same overused argument of "she should have changed jobs". That is not the point at all of the minimum wage talk. The real point is the degradation of the purchasing power of the dollar that makes nowadays the minimum wage insufficient.

The dollar has less purchasing power and salaries have not kept up to date to maintain the same parity.
To resume, the same basic job that allowed you to allow you to rent and get enough food, manage to pay basic medical and education years ago is now poverty wage that can barely maintain food in your table and any medical emergencies will get you bankrupt, education is also a pipe dream. This is an age where the top corporations are posting never seen records of profits with the CEOs and higher executives earning millions of millions of bonuses and stock value dividends and where these same privileged billionaires pay less taxes than anybody else. The same millionaires who get ridiculous incentives like tax exempts, free land and other benefits.
While the same groups of interests parrot about how socialism is bad when its FOR the people, but they are allright if its socialism FOR the rich (aka to keep wages low, government does subsidies to let people barely live by which are paid by middle class).
To resume, modern capitalism is what was feared back in the 90's. The rise of corporative feudalism.




As for graphics... there has been tons of studies about this.

View attachment 600149

Ironically, the "Boomer generation". The ones who got the best of the best of the economy, are the ones blasting about socialism and how the current generation are "lazy".

View attachment 600150

Which makes this famous meme very real.
View attachment 600148

Speaking of "Benefits" from Disney. Isn't Disney scaling back and cutting more and more benefits for the general cast members groups?
I remember hearing that many discounts on merchandise has been cut back. There are more blacked out days on the parks than ever before and its been ages since they had food discounts?

This is all great info and it is a compelling world view. I think on your next job interview you should explain all of this to your prospective employer. They will love to get to know you and your perspective!

 

[CaptinEO]

Probably because "back in the days". You could get a house, a car, maintain a family of 4 with a work in a factory with no high level education.



Its funny that every-time someone says a very compelling argument, your joke with hyperboles and over-exaggeration of things noone really asked.

This again, has nothing to do with "40 years old lifelong" orthe same overused argument of "she should have changed jobs". That is not the point at all of the minimum wage talk. The real point is the degradation of the purchasing power of the dollar that makes nowadays the minimum wage insufficient.

The dollar has less purchasing power and salaries have not kept up to date to maintain the same parity.
To resume, the same basic job that allowed you to allow you to rent and get enough food, manage to pay basic medical and education years ago is now poverty wage that can barely maintain food in your table and any medical emergencies will get you bankrupt, education is also a pipe dream. This is an age where the top corporations are posting never seen records of profits with the CEOs and higher executives earning millions of millions of bonuses and stock value dividends and where these same privileged billionaires pay less taxes than anybody else. The same millionaires who get ridiculous incentives like tax exempts, free land and other benefits.
While the same groups of interests parrot about how socialism is bad when its FOR the people, but they are allright if its socialism FOR the rich (aka to keep wages low, government does subsidies to let people barely live by which are paid by middle class).
To resume, modern capitalism is what was feared back in the 90's. The rise of corporative feudalism.




As for graphics... there has been tons of studies about this.

View attachment 600149

Ironically, the "Boomer generation". The ones who got the best of the best of the economy, are the ones blasting about socialism and how the current generation are "lazy".

View attachment 600150

Which makes this famous meme very real.
View attachment 600148

Speaking of "Benefits" from Disney. Isn't Disney scaling back and cutting more and more benefits for the general cast members groups?
I remember hearing that many discounts on merchandise has been cut back. There are more blacked out days on the parks than ever before and its been ages since they had food discounts?

But we have more social programs now than ever, how can the dollar be worth less? Shouldnt the rise of minimum wage and social programs fixed all the problems you mentioned based on your logic?

What's the solution?

I'm sure in the 50s and 60s no one went to college or trade school since apparently people believe "anyone could make a living wage at any job" in those days. Everything must've been rainbows and sunshine. Back in those days people were just Disneyland CMs and were so well off that they could have 5 kid and a wife who stayed at home.

I should go laugh at my parents and grandparents and tell them how foolish they were for getting a college degree when they lived in the golden age of easy money!

 

[RobWDW1971]

I should go laugh at my parents and grandparents and tell them how foolish they were for getting a college degree when they lived in the golden age of easy money!

Exactly! Man, when I was working two jobs while paying my way through school including being on the receiving end of a steam and heat spewing industrial dishwasher all night at a Sambo's (Google it, it was a thing) I was really cashing in my pre-Boomer privilege chips back then!

What a sucker I was! Who knew there were magical money trees I should have been picking?!

But I'm sure all of these Instagram influencers of today would have killed to take one of my shifts back then!

#bestlife

 

[Cesar R M]

This is all great info and it is a compelling world view. I think on your next job interview you should explain all of this to your prospective employer. They will love to get to know you and your perspective!

Its a fact based on statistics and historical data. If you want to go of the rails to continue the anti workers tirade.. well thats your thing.
I wonder if you somehow feel proud of pounding your chest of "owning those lazy kids because they NEVER worked as hard as I DID" backward crab-like mentality

Also my point as.. again.. absolutely nothing to do with telling a prospective employer about the facts of life. They are for profits and if they can get away with it, they will.
I mean, modern corporations controls almost every single means of production under different umbrellas.
I laugh so hard when someone claims "If you do not like this megacorp.. then you shouldn't consume anything on it".
When said megacorp probably creates or has any kind of involvement of almost everything in the chain of production of the entire household, life, health, food and entertainment .

Exactly! Man, when I was working two jobs while paying my way through school including being on the receiving end of a steam and heat spewing industrial dishwasher all night at a Sambo's (Google it, it was a thing) I was really cashing in my pre-Boomer privilege chips back then!

What a sucker I was! Who knew there were magical money trees I should have been picking?!

But I'm sure all of these Instagram influencers of today would have killed to take one of my shifts back then!

#bestlife

Hmm, instagram influencers.. riiiight.

But we have more social programs now than ever, how can the dollar be worth less? Shouldnt the rise of minimum wage and social programs fixed all the problems you mentioned based on your logic?

What's the solution?



I should go laugh at my parents and grandparents and tell them how foolish they were for getting a college degree when they lived in the golden age of easy money!

And have you stopped to think why these socials programs (even as infective as they are to tackle the real issue) are pooping consistently?
As mentioned before... corporations love socialism.. as long its for them.
So these social programs paid by the middle class pay balancing the poverty wages of many citizens receive by these same corps.

As for the 50's 60's.. I never said that.
Plus Tuition wasn't 2,500 to 10,000$ a month.

Everything must've been rainbows and sunshine. Back in those days people were just Disneyland CMs and were so well off that they could have 5 kid and a wife who stayed at home.

Amazing! I mentioned about this stupidity of adding hyperboles, over-exaggerating claims and twisting words. But hey, I guess you did when there is no argument, thats all its to say to claim to have a point. Right?

Because.. let's see...

1. Never said anything about CMs in the general wage degradation point.
2. Never said 5 kids.
3. Never said that everything was "rainbows and sunshine".
4. Never said that getting a degree was foolish and having no title was "golden age easy money".

Could perhaps you guys act your age.. and you know.. act like adults in an adult conversation?